While parties in Paris attending the COP 21 climate talks make promises, Indonesia is taking action to solve the issues of poverty, pollution, energy security, and climate. Martingale signed a memorandum of understanding with three Indonesian companies on October 27 to begin the planning to develop and build ThorCon liquid fuel nuclear power plants.

Tavernier, Florida (PRWEB) December 03, 2015 -- Indonesia has signed a memorandum of understanding with Martingale to develop thorium molten salt nuclear reactors to generate electricity. These will reduce the growth of coal-fired plants, slated to add 20 GW of generation capacity in the country’s most recent energy plan. Indonesia is serious about developing the non-intermittent, clean, and inexpensive power that ThorCon molten salt reactors offer.
Martingale and three Indonesian companies signed the MOU in Washington DC on the occasion of Indonesia President Joko Widodo’s visit to the US President Barak Obama. PT Industry Nuklir Indonesia (INUKI) is the state-owned nuclear fuel processing company. PT PLN is the state-owned power generation company. PT Pertamina is the state oil and gas giant which is now looking at nuclear and other forms of energy. Together these companies have formed the Indonesia Thorium Consortium whose purpose is the development and implementation of thorium molten salt reactors based on the ThorCon design.

The consortium will provide Indonesia with a clean solution to its pressing energy needs, at a price that is competitive with coal. The first plant is scheduled to be commissioned in 2021. INUKI with its license to import nuclear fuel will provide the thorium and uranium as required. Pertamina will provide its expertise in moving large scale power projects from cradle to maturity and help navigate the governmental bureaucracy. PLN will provide its expertise regarding siting the plant and connecting with the grid. Importantly, PLN will buy the power generated.

This is excellent news. I've thought for a long time now that the USA will be dragged kicking and screaming into a new nuclear economy by smaller nations that are not so comfortable with vast reserves of coal and natural gas. I say this not just because the USA has large amounts of fossil fuels but also because it has a long history of old nuclear infrastructure that is dependent on the status quo.

This is much like how the USA data infrastructure is getting leapfrogged by nations that did not have telephones before. The long existing information transfer companies have large investments in infrastructure that cost them a lot of money to build, and they are not going to replace them on a whim. For a nation without this infrastructure it is easy for them to build up a new infrastructure as there is no need to be integrated with an old one, this cost is nonexistent.

For a nation that does not have an existing nuclear regulation board they are not held back by outdated regulations and laws, they get to make up new ones as they go along. They will also not have any regulation or competition making it difficult to obtain material, skilled workers, or what not, they get to create the market and make one that is not set in old ways of doing things.

The USA will then be forced to act on this because they will now have competition. Foreign nations will be making new reactors, developing fuels and coolants, and the companies that exist within the USA will want to be a part of this market. Nothing is holding back the USA from doing this except that no one else has proven it can be done. Once it is shown it can work then the powers that be in the USA will be forced to allow this to happen in the USA or be placed at a serious disadvantage economically.

It is not a sure thing to happen as I expect but I truly believe it will. We have a regulatory environment that is built in a way that it answers to a large part to the existing players, that is the existing nuclear power plant operators are able to largely write the rules under which they operate. This is not unique to the nuclear power industry, the same can be said for electronics, aircraft/airlines, automotive, medicine, and on and on. Once another nation proves to the nuclear power industry in the USA that a molten salt reactor can be built at a cost that compares to that of a coal plant then they are going to want to have the opportunity to do so. This will not only come from the existing players in nuclear power, related industries like coal power will be interested as well. If the video is right that these plants can be built in shipyards with current technology then we will see ship builders get interested too.

Mining will no doubt change because right now thorium is economic poison. Regulations in the USA have made any potential site that contains too much thorium a problem. Thorium is regulated as any feedstock for a weapon of mass destruction would. I've had to deal with "dual use" technologies before and the regulations are terrible. Something that would seem as dangerous as a plastic coat hanger to most, like a few bits of code, can get someone in serious trouble if it is not handled like one would a mortar shell. Some nation that is willing to purchase thorium as a fuel would, I hope, change this. Thorium is useless as a weapon, we've proved that before in our own testing. For some reason even our own testing will not change federal policy. An emerging international market should produce enough political pressure to make changing the rules and regulations a political possibility.

It just angers me that the USA, a nation with so many "firsts", will not likely be the first to demonstrate a commercial molten salt reactor. We'll see it first in Indonesia, UAE, China, or some other nation that the typical citizen of the USA might not even be able to find on a map.

Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.

Rod Adams is just making a realistic assessment of Indonesia's thought process. Its really hard for a hydrocarbon exporter to like nuclear power.
This is the greatest proof we need the carbon dividend initiative, until all countries are forced to get away from oil/coal/gas, fossil fuel cost will just drop below clean energies and people will continue burning them.

Rod Adams is just making a realistic assessment of Indonesia's thought process. Its really hard for a hydrocarbon exporter to like nuclear power.

Terrestrial Energy is a company that might disagree with your assessment. One market that TEI sees for its IMSR technology is the oil and natural gas industry. They need power in often very remote locations to drive the equipment that extracts the very valuable fossil fuels from the ground. The power needed is not only electricity but also process heat, something that a small nuclear reactor would be very useful in providing.

One thing that separates Indonesia from Canada is climate. Canada is cold for much of the year and natural gas is a fuel that is very convenient for providing heat for homes. Indonesia is a tropical island, they don't have such heating needs. Another thing that separates Indonesia from Canada is the land mass. With the large American continent there is the possibility to pipe natural gas inexpensively to customers for not only heating but industry. Exporting natural gas from Indonesia would be expensive, either in undersea pipes (assuming it is feasible at all) or by compressing it for shipping.

Right now the primary customer for Indonesian natural gas is the electric utilities. For nuclear power to be useful to them it may be necessary to create a market for the natural gas. Not an impossible problem but certainly a large one.

macpacheco wrote:This is the greatest proof we need the carbon dividend initiative, until all countries are forced to get away from oil/coal/gas, fossil fuel cost will just drop below clean energies and people will continue burning them.

Carbon taxes are a very bad idea. Explaining the problems behind carbon taxes fully is something that would take much longer than this text box I'm typing in would allow. I'll try to summarize as best I can.

Carbon taxes increases the cost of energy artificially. I've seen claims that this could be offset by tax credits to the poor so that they may afford the increased energy costs without further burden on their finances. I am not convinced this is possible.

Our economy runs on energy. Lowering the cost of energy improves our ability to finance things like industry and research. If we are to free ourselves from burning fossil fuels then we will need the financial freedom to invest in industry and research. That means we need access to cheap energy. Artificially raising the cost of energy will diminish our ability to develop carbon free energy like wind and nuclear. We need to keep energy costs as low as possible to shorten the time we burn fossil fuels.

I know that will anger some, and confuse others, but we must continue burning fossil fuels to develop the means to stop burning fossil fuels. I had this explained to me so clearly before and I wish I knew how to share this in post on this forum. Any government policy that will place an artificial cap on carbon emissions, or a tax on carbon emissions, is dooming its people to an ecological disaster greater than if it did nothing.

Ignoring the bad policy that carbon taxes would be let's consider how one would "force" a nation to stop burning fossil fuels. Would you impose embargoes on a nation that burns fossil fuels? How would an embargo enable such a nation to get the technology, materials, and so forth necessary to develop "green" energy? Would you declare war on a fossil fuel burning nation? I doubt it.

What it comes down to is that we aren't burning fossil fuels because we're intending to destroy the environment. We are burning fossil fuels because that is how we achieve the prosperity that enables us to explore such endeavors as research into nuclear energy. Ending the consumption of fossil fuels before there is a cheaper alternative is the path to poverty. Therefore the only way to "force" someone to stop burning fossil fuels is to demonstrate how an alternative can bring them wealth.

Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.

Just about any tax is bad for the economy. But, if we assume that we need Government, and Governments need to be funded, then generally
- Raise taxes what you want less of, e.g. pollution, congestion, things that damage health, inequality.
- Reduce taxes in what you want more of, e.g. income, profits, employment.

A carbon tax is a tax on pollution. It would do no more economic damage than a tax on incomes, but would be socially more beneficial. It also has the effect of changing behaviour - which reduces import costs and encourages innovation, though ultimately that reduces tax revenue. It's also partially avoidable through behaviour changes. (Though not as avoidable as smoking taxes or national lotteries - which is why I like those taxes).

Carbon taxes are a very bad idea. Explaining the problems behind carbon taxes fully is something that would take much longer than this text box I'm typing in would allow. I'll try to summarize as best I can.

Carbon taxes increases the cost of energy artificially. I've seen claims that this could be offset by tax credits to the poor so that they may afford the increased energy costs without further burden on their finances. I am not convinced this is possible.

Our economy runs on energy. Lowering the cost of energy improves our ability to finance things like industry and research. If we are to free ourselves from burning fossil fuels then we will need the financial freedom to invest in industry and research. That means we need access to cheap energy. Artificially raising the cost of energy will diminish our ability to develop carbon free energy like wind and nuclear. We need to keep energy costs as low as possible to shorten the time we burn fossil fuels.

I know that will anger some, and confuse others, but we must continue burning fossil fuels to develop the means to stop burning fossil fuels. I had this explained to me so clearly before and I wish I knew how to share this in post on this forum. Any government policy that will place an artificial cap on carbon emissions, or a tax on carbon emissions, is dooming its people to an ecological disaster greater than if it did nothing.

Ignoring the bad policy that carbon taxes would be let's consider how one would "force" a nation to stop burning fossil fuels. Would you impose embargoes on a nation that burns fossil fuels? How would an embargo enable such a nation to get the technology, materials, and so forth necessary to develop "green" energy? Would you declare war on a fossil fuel burning nation? I doubt it.

What it comes down to is that we aren't burning fossil fuels because we're intending to destroy the environment. We are burning fossil fuels because that is how we achieve the prosperity that enables us to explore such endeavors as research into nuclear energy. Ending the consumption of fossil fuels before there is a cheaper alternative is the path to poverty. Therefore the only way to "force" someone to stop burning fossil fuels is to demonstrate how an alternative can bring them wealth.

The question is very simple: Do you believe in climate change or not ?
When was the last time we saw Tornadoes in the USA in late December ? Cat II hurricane in November ? Typhoons in december ?
Here in Brazil in 2014 we had extreme drought, and in 2015 we're having extreme floods in some parts of the country.

Will we wait until its too late ?

The divide is quite interesting in the USA. California with all of its questionable energy policies (for you conservative guys) is doing absolutely fine, while coal states aren't there at all.

The question is can you accept that in order for nuclear/solar/wind to thrive, coal must die.
There will be painful changes.
Carbon tax will be a net prosperity generator.

But of course that requires believing that government isn't a drag on everything.
Accepting that universal Healthcare in UK, France, Germany, Canada and many other countries were a strong GDP motor post WWII.
Govt isn't bad if the people demand better govt rather than demand govt is torn down.

The problem isn't that government is perfect (for a democrat) or the devil (for a Republican). The problem is the extreme views on both sides that drive total govt disfunction.

If you accept the fact that climate change will destroy the earth if we don't take drastic action, then the whole carbon dividend initiative is extremely important. The most important part is forcing all other countries in the world to adopt of face added import taxes. China seems to be moving in the right direction, but I doubt they will go fast enough, and I think India is just doing lip service. China and India alone have the power the assure climate change will bite us hard.

Even if solar is most expensive than coal today, increasing its adoption is important.
The biggest challenge with solar is we can't prove the panels being installed today will perhaps last 50 or 60 years much like we can't prove a new nuclear reactor installed today will go for 80 (or even longer) years.
The whole math is predicated on new panels production the equivalent of 25 years of full power, assuming that in 30 or 35 years they will be retired (for not producing even 50% of initial capacity).
If solar panels end up lasting 50 years and produce the equivalent of 35 years of full power, that changes the math quite a bit.

The same Arizona that's trying to kill solar has no new nuclear projects.

Carbon taxes are a very bad idea. Explaining the problems behind carbon taxes fully is something that would take much longer than this text box I'm typing in would allow. I'll try to summarize as best I can.

Carbon taxes increases the cost of energy artificially. I've seen claims that this could be offset by tax credits to the poor so that they may afford the increased energy costs without further burden on their finances. I am not convinced this is possible.

Our economy runs on energy. Lowering the cost of energy improves our ability to finance things like industry and research. If we are to free ourselves from burning fossil fuels then we will need the financial freedom to invest in industry and research. That means we need access to cheap energy. Artificially raising the cost of energy will diminish our ability to develop carbon free energy like wind and nuclear. We need to keep energy costs as low as possible to shorten the time we burn fossil fuels.

I know that will anger some, and confuse others, but we must continue burning fossil fuels to develop the means to stop burning fossil fuels. I had this explained to me so clearly before and I wish I knew how to share this in post on this forum. Any government policy that will place an artificial cap on carbon emissions, or a tax on carbon emissions, is dooming its people to an ecological disaster greater than if it did nothing.

Ignoring the bad policy that carbon taxes would be let's consider how one would "force" a nation to stop burning fossil fuels. Would you impose embargoes on a nation that burns fossil fuels? How would an embargo enable such a nation to get the technology, materials, and so forth necessary to develop "green" energy? Would you declare war on a fossil fuel burning nation? I doubt it.

What it comes down to is that we aren't burning fossil fuels because we're intending to destroy the environment. We are burning fossil fuels because that is how we achieve the prosperity that enables us to explore such endeavors as research into nuclear energy. Ending the consumption of fossil fuels before there is a cheaper alternative is the path to poverty. Therefore the only way to "force" someone to stop burning fossil fuels is to demonstrate how an alternative can bring them wealth.

The question is very simple: Do you believe in climate change or not ?
When was the last time we saw Tornadoes in the USA in late December ? Cat II hurricane in November ? Typhoons in december ?
Here in Brazil in 2014 we had extreme drought, and in 2015 we're having extreme floods in some parts of the country.

Will we wait until its too late ?

The divide is quite interesting in the USA. California with all of its questionable energy policies (for you conservative guys) is doing absolutely fine, while coal states aren't there at all.

The question is can you accept that in order for nuclear/solar/wind to thrive, coal must die.
There will be painful changes.
Carbon tax will be a net prosperity generator.

But of course that requires believing that government isn't a drag on everything.
Accepting that universal Healthcare in UK, France, Germany, Canada and many other countries were a strong GDP motor post WWII.
Govt isn't bad if the people demand better govt rather than demand govt is torn down.

The problem isn't that government is perfect (for a democrat) or the devil (for a Republican). The problem is the extreme views on both sides that drive total govt disfunction.

If you accept the fact that climate change will destroy the earth if we don't take drastic action, then the whole carbon dividend initiative is extremely important. The most important part is forcing all other countries in the world to adopt of face added import taxes. China seems to be moving in the right direction, but I doubt they will go fast enough, and I think India is just doing lip service. China and India alone have the power the assure climate change will bite us hard.

Even if solar is most expensive than coal today, increasing its adoption is important.
The biggest challenge with solar is we can't prove the panels being installed today will perhaps last 50 or 60 years much like we can't prove a new nuclear reactor installed today will go for 80 (or even longer) years.
The whole math is predicated on new panels production the equivalent of 25 years of full power, assuming that in 30 or 35 years they will be retired (for not producing even 50% of initial capacity).
If solar panels end up lasting 50 years and produce the equivalent of 35 years of full power, that changes the math quite a bit.

The same Arizona that's trying to kill solar has no new nuclear projects.

Nuclear is a good solution for those who sincerely believe co2 is dangerous (e.g. James Hansen of the CAGW is real crowd). Those who think co2 is dangerous but don't support nuclear have another agenda (power, $$$, etc). Those who believe AGW (but not CAGW) have no problem supporting nuclear over fossil fuels.

[FWIW - There is no physical theory nor empirical data (e.g. tornadoes/hurricanes are not increasing) to support the theory of co2 causing "climate change". There is a physical theory behind co2 induced "global warming" but the data recently indicate modest and beneficial rather than catastrophic warming.]

alexterrell wrote:Just about any tax is bad for the economy. But, if we assume that we need Government, and Governments need to be funded, then generally
- Raise taxes what you want less of, e.g. pollution, congestion, things that damage health, inequality.
- Reduce taxes in what you want more of, e.g. income, profits, employment.

I agree we need government. I agree that we need taxes to fund a government. I agree that government performs many necessary functions. Where it seems that we disagree is that government is the mechanism by which we should be solving our energy problems.

alexterrell wrote:A carbon tax is a tax on pollution. It would do no more economic damage than a tax on incomes, but would be socially more beneficial.

That is true only if carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is necessary for life. Taxing carbon does not improve our situation as it does little to drive the research and development of alternatives. It is also a tax on the poor to subsidize the wealthy. Who gets the funds from these carbon taxes? Is it the common blue collar worker? No, it's the people that are building windmills and solar panels knowing full well that they don't actually reduce carbon output.

What reduces carbon output? Nuclear power. To a lesser extent natural gas reduces carbon output. It is because of natural gas that the USA has reduced it's carbon output as much as it has. Nuclear power is a sledgehammer to carbon output compared to swinging a wet noodle that is wind and solar.

Carbon taxes is just tax on the poor to spend on political contributors. I hold no illusion that if we see nuclear power development grow that such licenses and funding won't be used to buy political contributions but at least we'd be doing something useful, as opposed to merely doing something.

Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.

macpacheco wrote:
The question is very simple: Do you believe in climate change or not ?
When was the last time we saw Tornadoes in the USA in late December ? Cat II hurricane in November ? Typhoons in december ?
Here in Brazil in 2014 we had extreme drought, and in 2015 we're having extreme floods in some parts of the country.

Whether I believe in climate change or not is, IMHO, irrelevant. I'm arguing under the assumption that it is true or, at a minimum, moving away from fossil fuels is beneficial for other reasons. Also, you are confusing weather with climate. Tornadoes in late December have been recorded since we've been keeping records in the 1860s.

macpacheco wrote:Will we wait until its too late ?

I thought you've been telling us to wait five years for BEVs, solar panels, and grid storage to improve. What do you propose we do right now? I've been saying we should be building nuclear fission power plants, we have the technology to do that now at a price cheaper than coal. Solar panels and grid storage are uneconomic right now.

macpacheco wrote:The divide is quite interesting in the USA. California with all of its questionable energy policies (for you conservative guys) is doing absolutely fine, while coal states aren't there at all.

California is a mess. I got to see some of it first hand when I visited there. Perhaps it has improved some since I last visited but I recall large downtown areas with numerous vacant buildings. Businesses are leaving and taking jobs with them. Anyone with enough money for a bus ticket has left or has at least considered it. I suspect the only reason California isn't a complete ghost town is because of those industries that rely on California's geography. There's shipping, wine country, dairy farms, fishing, skiing, and some people still go to see that big "Hollywood" sign.

The "coal states" aren't doing so well either. Federal policies have shut down much of the coal mining. What is booming now is natural gas. Federal policies now allow for export of energy resources, I expect further booms in the future.

macpacheco wrote:The question is can you accept that in order for nuclear/solar/wind to thrive, coal must die.

Coal must die eventually, one way or another. I don't care much how. We can make nuclear power so cheap that no one would be foolish enough to bother, or we can keep digging up coal for a thousand years until we run out.

macpacheco wrote:Carbon tax will be a net prosperity generator.

Says you. I've heard more convincing arguments elsewhere. How much have you been studying this? I will admit that I'm a nobody but I at least went to college for electrical and computer engineering, I have two engineering degrees and I'm working on a third. I know a few things on how solar panels and windmills work.

macpacheco wrote:
If you accept the fact that climate change will destroy the earth if we don't take drastic action, then the whole carbon dividend initiative is extremely important.

The planet will be fine. The humans that live on it might be in for some troubles though.

macpacheco wrote:The most important part is forcing all other countries in the world to adopt of face added import taxes.

Indonesia exports oil to allow them to buy food and durable goods. If you impose taxes or embargoes on them for that then you could be condemning real and actual people to starvation. I do hope you are not serious.

macpacheco wrote:Even if solar is most expensive than coal today, increasing its adoption is important.

It's more important to do something useful than to merely do something. Solar power is a distraction, it's an economic and ecological disaster. Solar power is for communication satellites and pocket calculators, everything else should be nuclear.

macpacheco wrote:The same Arizona that's trying to kill solar has no new nuclear projects.

In the USA the federal government has decided it has a monopoly on nuclear technologies. Arizona cannot, or will not, issue nuclear power plant licenses on its own. Don't blame the people of Arizona for the failing of people in DC.

I do maintain that the federal government has only those powers that the states grant it, the states can (constitutionally speaking) issue licenses for the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant but so far no state has been willing to do so. If challenged on this I suspect the federal government will put up a fight. I also suspect that with natural gas so cheap and abundant that no state is much concerned about energy policy right now. Gasoline prices are as low as we've seen in a long time. I expect that to change this summer though. We have elections this coming November, I expect energy policy to come up.

Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.

Kurt Sellner wrote:Where it seems that we disagree is that government is the mechanism by which we should be solving our energy problems.

I think Governments exist to solve problems that can't otherwise be solved. Like ensuring externalities are paid for. The burning of carbon based fuels has an external cost. The IMF estimated this at about $400 per ton of oil equivalent, or about $55 per barrel. (This was falsely referred to a "subsidy")

That is true only if carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is necessary for life.

That's a question of semantics for the US's EPA and its critics to sort out. According to climate scientists, an excess of CO2 over historical levels is primarily responsible for global warming. I'm not a climate scientist, so if you disagree, take it up with the experts.

Taxing carbon does not improve our situation as it does little to drive the research and development of alternatives. It is also a tax on the poor to subsidize the wealthy. Who gets the funds from these carbon taxes? Is it the common blue collar worker? No, it's the people that are building windmills and solar panels knowing full well that they don't actually reduce carbon output.

You could say the same about income tax or VAT, and you would be more accurate.

Most of Europe taxes motor fuel at a much higher rate than $55/barrel. That money is used for all kinds of things. It has benefited those who make efficient cars over those that try and sell Humvees and Expeditions. Once the price of EVs come down a bit more, it will benefit them - I'm very keen to replace our second car with an EV.

Nuclear power, wind, solar reduce CO2 output. Gas does in America, did in Britain, but doesn't in France.

But they all tend to be more expensive than coal. The IMF's externality cost would add about 10c to a KWh of coal electricity. It would probably wipe out coal, make gas attractive, and spur the building of nuclear plants and wind turbines in an efficient, market driven way.

Without a carbon tax, why not just burn coal? It's cheaper than nuclear. ThorCon might say there technology will be cheaper than coal, but not enough for world's Governments and investors to really take note.

The UK is getting round this issue by rigging the market with strike prices, to make nuclear an attractive proposition. But really, a carbon tax would be more efficient and effective.

(Germany is more interested in getting rid of nuclear than reducing CO2 and combating global warming, so a carbon tax wouldn't help there).

Banda Aceh. Indonesia will not resort to nuclear energy to meet its target of 136.7 gigawatt of power capacity by 2025 and 430 gigawatt by 2050, a minister said on Saturday. The move means a previous $8-billion plan to operate four nuclear plants with a total capacity of 6 gigawatt by 2025 will be canceled.

"We have arrived at the conclusion that this is not the time to build up nuclear power capacity. We still have many alternatives and we do not need to raise any controversies," Energy and Mineral Resources Minister Sudirman Said said on Saturday in Banda Aceh. The minister spoke after the National Energy Council, a presidential advisory body, completed its latest National Energy Plan, which is to be signed by President Joko Widodo to become a presidential regulation.

The plan, last revised in 2006, lays down the ground rules and guidelines for energy development in Indonesia, as well as the country's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The plan from 2006 still left room for nuclear energy, but the latest guidelines say Indonesia should increase the use of renewable energy sources to 23 percent of its total primary energy -- from the current target of 5 percent -- by 2025.

Energy from coal is slashed to 30 percent from 33 percent previously, but Indonesia will rely more on oil, which is set to account for 25 percent of energy in the next decade, from the previous target of 20 percent. Natural gas will contribute the remaining 22 percent to reach the 2025 target, Sudirman said, without providing details on the energy mix target for 2050.

The minister added that Indonesia will continue to follow developments in the field of nuclear technology and that it would remain a last-resort option for possible use beyond 2050. While having experimented with nuclear power since the 1950s, Indonesia currently only operates three small-scale reactors: a 100-kilowatt reactor in Yogyakarta, a 250-kW reactor in Bandung and a 30-MW reactor in Serpong, in Banten. A previous proposal to build larger-scale plants on Central Java's Muria peninsula and in Bangka-Belitung met with resistance from local residents who feared leaks on the scale of the Fukushima disaster in equally earthquake-prone Japan. Another place that was under consideration to host a nuclear power plant was Kalimantan, where there are no volcanoes and the relatively large distance from tectonic fault lines means the chance of devastating earthquakes is limited.